70 Percent of Young Swedish Men Are Video Pirates, Study Says (torrentfreak.com) 207
A new study from Sweden has found that just over half of all young people admit to obtaining movies and TV shows from the Internet without paying, a figure that rockets to 70 percent among young men, reports TorrentFreak, citing a study. From the report: According to figures just released by media industry consultants Mediavision, in January 2017 almost a quarter of all Swedes aged between 15 and 74 admitted either streaming or downloading movies from 'pirate' sites during the past month. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tendency to do so is greater among the young. More than half of 15 to 24-year-olds said they'd used a torrent or streaming site during December. When concentrating that down to only young men in the same age group, the figure leaps to 70 percent.
Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Is the Wall Street journal out to slander them too?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Hillary. The "vast right-wing conspiracy" is at it again, huh?
Results seem suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
If you asked most non-technical people if they were using a "streaming site" to watch video, it seems like it would be hard to phrase a question in a way that would properly separate legal from non-legal use... how many would include something like Netflix? Of you said you hand't paid for it, how would they really know if website they used was legal or not? If you ask about specific pirate sites then you might get more accurate results.
Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
change the law
We figured they were more actual guidelines.
TANSTAAFL (Score:3)
And then what? Who'll pay millions of dollars to produce the movies/shows, that viewers can watch for free?
Are you sure, you want it all sponsored by advertising entirely?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hypocrisy on both sides (Score:2)
to consume it anyway
*view it
Nothing is "consumed" [gnu.org] when a work is viewed.
without paying the creators whatever they want — is hypocrisy.
Then how much does the Shakespeare estate deserve for West Side Story (1961) and Romeo + Juliet (1996)?
Re: (Score:2)
As for your question, Shakespeare obviously receives credit for the basis for interpretation of his works (and effectively modernizing and proliferating the English language more widely -- a totally separate discussion). Had he popularized his works in the age of copyright, TV & film, he w
Re: (Score:2)
Then how much does the Shakespeare estate deserve for West Side Story (1961) and Romeo + Juliet (1996)?
I think his copyright expired around 400 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess then it's a good thing disc-based media are on the way out, that way people can't steal content so easily anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
How about "for non-commercial use only" as the discriminating rule for copying? Seems like that would get right at the heart of the ethics of the situation. Art belongs to the world, but the artist controls the right *profit* from it.
That would also dovetail nicely with maintaining venue owners into needing a license for public performance. Unless of course the performance/venue is completely nonprofit, which obviously doesn't apply to movie theaters, bars, etc. that expect to make money off the people t
Re: (Score:2)
How about "for non-commercial use only" as the discriminating rule for copying? Seems like that would get right at the heart of the ethics of the situation.
It's worth pointing out that this undermines alternative models like PPV and subscription streaming libraries, which have been some of the most successful ways of getting people (legal) access to more content at lower prices. If everyone can just save whatever they want, there's no difference between these models and selling a permanent copy of every work, so the pricing can't allow for the different cases and either the prices for the services go up or the services fail because their previously useful busi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it might well. It might also undermine the current markets for most software.
And yes, lots of smaller producers might stop as well.
That however is only indirectly relevant to the discussion - copyright is a social construct for the benefit of society through incentivizing additional creation by creating artificial scarcity. The only relevant question is whether the incremental change in production due to any copyright change outweighs the incremental change in society's access to it. If an alternati
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you until you said copyright hasn't benefitted us. Given that most of the best quality and most widely distributed creative content we produce today is supported through copyright in one way or another, I don't think that argument stands up in the face of the evidence. Just compare a summer blockbuster with an amateur movie on YouTube, or fan fiction with a bestselling novel, or most community-developed FOSS with its commercial competition.
Art surely wouldn't go away completely without copyright,
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand it is quite amazing how many times a small low budget movie will succeed vastly beyond expectations.
On the gripping hand I do not want to lose some of the incredible big budget films
Re: (Score:2)
That is hilarious. Thanks.
Re:TANSTAAFL (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the current model is the problem. If 70% of people can be pirates and movie stars can still make millions more than their equally educated peers then maybe the amount they CHARGE to view the content is the problem.
Just thinking about entertainers like PewDiePie - He has 53 million subscribers and makes ~$12 million a year. That under $0.25 per person per year for all his content and I think he would say he is doing fine. This is a 100% ad-supported model.
If people paid just $1 for all his content each year he would make $53 million+ a year (not everyone subscribes)... The point is, the actors and actresses feel the need to make way too much and anyone in economics would tell you they are trying to optimize their profit. The problem with that is it inherently creates people who are not willing to pay the market rate for the content and since it is "free" to copy it - they do.
Obviously with physical goods you can't just "copy" the good and thus it isn't much of a problem when someone is not willing to pay market rate. They can still try to copy the item but it costs them $ and we don't call that pirating. We don't call it pirating when I take a stick and use it for a marshmallow skewer. We wouldn't call it pirating if I "copied" a patented idea with my own materials.
This is simply a massive market failure because the middle class / upper middle class see $20 for a movie (for their family of 4) as cheap while lower classes and young see it as very expensive for themselves alone or a couple. The media executives think they have found pricing that generates the most profit but the *necessary* side effect is a market failure for some people. The incorrect thought by these media executive is that the people would ever be paying customers at the current price. It will NEVER happen. The reason they are not paying customers has nothing to do with the ability to pirate and everything to do with PRICING.
Re:TANSTAAFL (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, the actors and actresses feel the need to make way too much and anyone in economics would tell you they are trying to optimize their profit. The problem with that is it inherently creates people who are not willing to pay the market rate for the content and since it is "free" to copy it - they do.
This is one area I feel the entertainment industry just doesn't get it. The general attitude often seems to be "I cost us X to make this thing, therefore it is worth X".
Unfortunately, that's not how any other markets work. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. This goes for virtually anything that is bought and sold -- toys, comic books, computers, cars, stocks, collector coins, individual pieces of art, gold -- the price is based completely off what people are willing to pay for an item, and has little or nothing to do with how much it cost to produce. This is actually a good thing -- items with a high perceived value can command higher prices and reap more profits, while at the same time there is a push to find ways to lower prices to enhance the perceived value vs. price ratio.
I view media piracy along these lines. It's part of the markets way of telling the media companies that the perceived value of what they produce is lower for many people than what they charge.
Now admittedly in the last few years better pricing models with (legal) streaming services like Netflix have helped to improve the situation for many consumers. TV in particular seems to have done a really good job of coming up with ways of putting content online for free (TV shows are highly advertising supported anyway). But other parts of the industry seem to be fixated upon fixed pricing, especially for new media, that is above the value much of the population would put on it. People willing pay for things when they perceive the value as being more than the price; but when you price things above that perceived value line, you just drive piracy. It doesn't matter how much something cost to make -- if you want to charge more than the market is willing to pay, people simply aren't going to pay.
Yaz
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble with your economic model is that it's ignoring the one-sided nature of piracy. It's OK to argue that work is worth what someone will pay for it and the market will determine that rate, but that is predicated on the idea that you don't get the benefit if you don't pay the cost.
The entire economic model fails if you say that someone can enjoy the benefits of another's work without having to make any choice about what it's worth because they don't have to pay anything at all. Obviously that is unsu
Re: (Score:2)
But they aren't market forces. Economic markets are two-sided. This is a game where only one side is playing by the rules, and the strategy continues to work only as long as that one-sided situation remains.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the vast, vast majority of works being pirated are recent, and would still have been covered by even the original copyright periods of centuries ago.
And plenty of those works aren't created by Big Media industries with vast budgets.
And any argument about copyright only applying to copies making money has to take into account that when these laws were first developed, that was basically the only kind of copying there was.
There are legitimate concerns about scope creep in copyright, Disney laws, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is obviously not one for the industry, it's one for *society*. And copyright, like all other laws in a theoretically democratic society are created by society to serve society. If the current deal is disproportionately serving the industry rather than society, then it's probably time to change the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit it is VERY obvious that there is little, if any, support for this law. And such laws are actually very dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit it is VERY obvious that there is little, if any, support for this law.
Except among the people who are actually doing the work and generating all the value, you mean?
Most of us might care very little about a law that says your physical property is yours and someone else can't just pick it up and walk off with it if they want to. I imagine you have stronger feelings on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws apply universally, so saying that I care about a law protecting MY property is pointless. It protects everyone's property, I do not enjoy personal protection laws. Unlike a certain group of "property" holders.
You see, that's the problem with the examples presented too many times by proponents of insane copyright laws: Most of them are far fetched and don't translate well into reality. I once, in a discussion, had someone argue that it's "impossible" to produce content the way the users want, despite ex
Re: (Score:2)
So it's not a personal law protecting your property because some other people have property too, but millions of people who work in creative industries are all getting special treatment?
If it's all so unfair, and the efforts of content creators are of such little value, the same laws do apply to you, and you're welcome to take advantage of them just like anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
The same laws? Show me one single group of people who can work once and milk it forever. When was the last time you saw a bricklayer getting to charge everyone moving into a house he ever built? Or a plumber being paid every time someone flushes a toilet he connected?
Sorry, but the content industry HAS its very special laws that everyone and their grandchildren up to 70 years after their death can at best DREAM of.
Re: (Score:2)
The same laws?
Yes, exactly the same laws. If you think the system is loaded in favour of content creators, you are as free as anyone else to create new content of your own and benefit from that system if you can. Millions of people make their living this way and billions benefit from the results, so it's not as if this is some crazy niche rule, nor one law for the rich and another for everyone else.
Show me one single group of people who can work once and milk it forever.
Well, pretty much any investment-based business works this way. Landlords who rent out their properties are probably the mos
Re: (Score:2)
All what value?
The value in the works. If people are copying them then presumably they find then beneficial in some way. Maybe they're entertaining. Maybe they're informative. Maybe they're useful tools.
Whatever actual value the works have comes from the people who create them. It wouldn't exist otherwise. We can debate the economics around compensating those people (or not) but the fact that all of the value originates with the creators is objective and undeniable.
As I've commented elsewhere in this discussion, there are
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but just 'cause you invest a lot of time and effort doesn't make something valuable. By that logic any sandcastle built by the average 5 year old costs millions. And don't make me ask for money for the space station I built with Lego when I was 10!
Value is what someone who wants something gives it. By definition. You can ask for a price, but if that price is below what I value it, there will be no sale.
What you, as the creator, can attach to a commodity is its cost. Not its value.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense. You're perfectly entitled not to pay for a copyrighted work that you don't find to be worth the asking price. What you're not entitled to do is have it anyway, even if you don't want to pay for it. If it truly has no value to you, then obviously the latter won't be a problem for you. But if you still want it even though you aren't willing to pay anything for it, it takes some serious mental gymnastics to argue that the work has value in one context yet not in another.
Re: (Score:2)
That we can agree on.
Your original posting came across as if the creator of something is entitled to being rewarded for the mere creation of whatever he did, and this he is not. Only when he finds someone who considers the creation valuable enough he will be rewarded, not by the mere feat of creating something.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately your post makes you out to be a hypocrite.
If there is no value in the works why are you stealing it? If you are bothering to download it then you do not believe it has no value. Pure hypocrisy - or self deception.
The hell hell with you. I am looking forward to "Guardians of the Galaxy II" with Fried Rodent.
Re: (Score:3)
As it turns out, quality content does not have that problem. An artist that can not survive on what people are willing to give does not deserve to be able to live of his art. It has always been like that, except when in modern times Big Content has hijacked and perverted the system. Incidentally, copyright was introduced to prevent big publishers ripping off artists by printing their texts without permission and with zero compensation for the artists. As such, it is completely perverted today.
Re: (Score:2)
An artist that can not survive on what people are willing to give does not deserve to be able to live of his art.
Most artists already can't live off their art directly. For every Hollywood A-lister, Grammy award winner or YouTube star there are countless bit-part players, local bands and casual vloggers who are just trying to make a bit extra to fund their creative work.
Copyright does protect those people too. Indeed, given the costs of enforcement, copyright is most useful for protecting them against the kind of exploitation you described, when the damages they might receive could actually justify taking action to en
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting theory. Is there any data to support it? Anecdotally, I feel like things are going the other way and the advent of services like YouTube and Spotify and of the Internet more generally means people are far less limited to mainstream entertainment these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I choose to watch and pay for blockbusters. You want that forcibly taken away from me in the expectation that I will be 'forced' to spend my other elsewhere and people you admire or think should be supported will benefit, while millions of working stiffs lose creative jobs they enjoy.
You are no less an authoritarian than are the music and film companies, trump, and Kim il Jong. You want the world change to meet your wants. You are not operating on 'principle'.
Re: (Score:2)
1. This is about one group (you) actively forcing their views on others.
2. Your belief is irrelevant. I do not care about your belief. I care about your wish to harm many, many others (creators and consumers).
3. Let's Godwin your ridiculous attitude for once and all. Following orders is obeying rules. Rules never decide. The one who makes the rules decides. The one that makes the rules is authoritarian. As you are. Good rules are seldom made by single minds. Not even yours.
You are willing to caus
Re: (Score:2)
Now you understand you have been a bourke, you try and trivialise? "harm gets done..." No retraction, no apology, about the fact that you are willing to create harm based on nothing but you think you are right.
You made it about authoritarianism when you expressed an authoritarian attitude.
Having to pay a reasonable price for a blockbuster is being harmed is it? No, not paying for it is doing the harm.
I am not a supporter of the current copyright situation. But your views are extreme and dictatorial. Th
Re: (Score:2)
You are totally correct in that.
Pity you do not seem to have consistent principles. Which I have pointed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Big things take big investments. Big things take big organisations. It is nothing to do with lack of imagination. It is, after all, creative people we are talking about. The issue is funding and organising.
You are being hypocritical again - "...not a fault of my system itself" when you do not have a system. You are just deeming certain thing to be unfit to exist. Arbitrarily. By fiat.
Re: (Score:2)
Disingenuous.
A very strange idea of reality and one that is to be strongly opposed. I have a dislike for dictators, authoritarians and fascists. So do most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Again you wish to force your choice on others.
It so happens I have ponied up funds for two movies being made. But I may not live to see their completion nor do I have any guarantee my money is not wasted. They will never have good production value because crowdfunding is simply inadequate to produce blockbuster quality movies.
The Missionary Church of Kopimism is as full of crap as Hubbard. Its philosophies inconsistent. They should study some information theory. Yes it it is arbitrary.
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding how things work... hhmmm... I think perhaps better than you.
I paint water paints. I do not like to use acrylic or oils. If I had to use oils I would stop painting.
For me to make a living from my art (I do not) I need it to be seen and sold. Photos on the internet are not good enough. I need a physical place to hang my work and someone to take the money. Now painting is not well remunerated (in your lifetime) even if you are good the "hourly rate" sucks badly. This is reality. So, I ear
Re: (Score:2)
That is because you are in an echo chamber and only hearing your own voice.
Re: (Score:2)
People have a dislike for the idea of dictators authoritarians and fascists when all along, they all are. Everyone is that sort of person and fits into at least one of those categories.
Well, no. Not everyone is like that and if you think that they are then you are spiritually defeated already. I pity you.
Re: (Score:2)
Play positive sum games. Think in those terms. It is simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, does your echo chamber blur things?
If I could have supported and educated my kids by painting I would have done so. I stated what I would need to do incurred even further cost to the point where "painting for profit" only applies to house painters. And you seem to think that recognising the reality of the situation is somehow not a "good grasp of reality". You really have your head on backwards.
You have no reason (or given none) for your belief that the nett choices will increase. You know (have a
Re: (Score:2)
Then you lack creativity and balance. The definition for positive, zero and negative sum games are readily available.
Tell me, what are your feelings about public infrastructure? You think roads, railways, power plants should be built by crowd-funding? Oh! And what about libraries? That is where people who cannot afford to purchase books go. Round here it is the same with DVDs etc. If there is anything I want then the local public library will get it in for me (not speculation, experience). So if I ind
Re: (Score:2)
If the majority would vote to abolish or diminsh protection of "intellectual property", there would be less money to produce profits and content.
Maybe we'll see less content, maybe we'll see less lobbying and laws being bought by the content industry, or less absurd amounts of money going into the pockets of a few.
I think humanity will find new ways of producing content for entertainment, it is not a law of nature that only monopolies and obscene amounts of profit can generate content that people want to wa
Re: (Score:2)
And then what? Who'll pay millions of dollars to produce the movies/shows, that viewers can watch for free?
More content we don't need just to keep movie/music studios and artists/actors employed or keep coal burning power plants around instead of replacing them with cleaner, more efficient ones so that coal workers have a job? You do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
We already can watch them for free.
Sure you can, as long as enough other people are still paying for you. The term "freeloading" is remarkably accurate in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an argument that makes some sense in very limited circumstances, mainly those where works can be presented as live performances, which basically means music or live theatre.
Unfortunately, there is no equivalent for the work done by almost everyone who works in creative industries behind the scenes, or even as a direct creator of other types of work.
The problem we have is that, as you rightly say, the marginal cost for copying creative works is now close to zero, and people only look at that without c
Re: (Score:2)
We already can watch them for free.
We're paying, it's just the money goes to the ISPs and VPN providers, rather than RIAA and MPAA. Had the entertainment industry groups the foresight to provide inexpensive, DRM-free content free from geo-restrictions and such nonsense, they would have made a lot more money. Instead, they decided to play hardball by suing their customers and locking down content making it difficult to obtain.
The situation today is a directy result of the short-sighted greedy tactics they chose to employ. As any cowboy will
Re: (Score:2)
As any cowboy will tell you "Screw with the bull, you get the horn."
That does cut both ways, though. Although plenty of people copy works illegally and never suffer any real penalty for it, those who do come onto the radar of rightsholders can be in for an expensive and very distressing time.
Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Funny)
At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?
Never. That's not an option, because if the world succumbs to piracy, it will fall apart. We must continue efforts to address piracy in four ways:
It's not impossible if you're willing to think outside the square. If the figure goes up around 90% we could just drop a nuke. We've got plenty, and we're not using them.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
What have we got to lose?
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds nice in paper, but in practice, it's you and your little company against millions of people trying to subvert and break your thing.
But making easier to get the legal alternative generally works a LOT better.
This is why netflix is a thing, steam is a thing, apple store is a thing...
Those worked much better at actually getting money to the companies than any form of law, DRM system or monitoring.
Re: (Score:2)
But making easier to get the legal alternative generally works a LOT better.
Most people who say that have never tried to do it.
It is true, up to a point, for mass market products. For example, if you region-lock your content so it isn't legally available in some places, of course you're creating an incentive for people to find it through other means.
It is not nearly so true for small works in niche markets created by individuals or small groups. These are typically readily available for reasonable prices and with far less encumbrance direct from the original creators, yet still peo
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know we got smart bombs?
It's a good thing that our bombs are clever
Don't ya know that the smart bombs are so clever?
They only kill bad people now
Re: (Score:2)
Or, more reasonably, make it on par with shoplifting for punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
even more reasonably: treat it like a speed violation of 1 km/h.
Re: (Score:2)
At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?
That presumes people are consistent in what they do, what they think others should do and what's really right. Take for example speeding, very few want to do away with speed limits entirely. Most people break the speed limit themselves. In fact, almost every year around school starting they have speed traps and some of those caught are bringing their kids to school. Like, everybody else should drive slow but I was in a hurry so... hypocrisy at its finest.
I think most people fundamentally think the creator s
Re: (Score:2)
At the stage where you have a working Democracy that does not bow to US interests. The Swiss have made downloading for personal use legally tolerated, because if it ever came to a vote, a law criminalizing it would stand no chance. Of course, every new law in Switzerland has to be signed off by the population and that is what Democracy looks like. Not always smart, but usually keeping self-interest of the citizens in view.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same percentage it was justified to change the law in Germany in 1930s to make Jews illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Where individuals are merely consuming the product without spending there is no punishment for R&D, it is only less profitable (and of course A would not be happy).
The trouble with this argument is that beyond a certain point, the R&D ceases to be profitable at all, and so it stops, and then everyone (including those who would benefit from the work, whether they were going to pay for it or not) loses out.
Copyright as an economic tool actually serves two quite distinct purposes here. It does prevent one commercial party from piggy-backing on another's work as you described. But it also incentivizes doing that work in the first place. In particular, it makes it viab
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can get away with charging full monopoly rents for your "work", you don't have to produce a new one to keep eating.
Only if your work continues to provide enough value to other people that the market is willing to keep paying for it indefinitely. A tiny number of people ever reach that point, and arguably those people have generated so much value for society that maybe they do deserve to be set up for life.
Moreover, you have already broken the copyright laws by your land grab extensions of time and coverage
Erm... What? By definition, those extensions were changing the law, not breaking it. I agree with you that a lot of the terms have become unreasonably long and some of the laws should be changed. However, I also don't
Legal isn't even an option we have (Score:5, Insightful)
In Scandinavia, being legal movie user is not even an option we have. Which movies are available when, is determined by some large media giants. Netflix and other streaming services contain a fraction of the movies the American one has. The series networks (ABC / NBC / ....) are not available or extremely difficult to get to because of geofencing. Someone else choose which subtitles are available, and if they are hardcoded.
Soehh.. I think many of the young men listed here, myself included, would be happy to pay some $10 to $25 a month to LEGALLY watch movies, if that was an option. The audio guys slowly learn: streaming is available everywhere, and people use the services instead of copying MP3 files. Movie guys still don't get it.
Just 2c from this side of the fence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When shit is digitized, it becomes public property by way of CaptainDork's Third Corollary:
For every mother fucker with a computer there is another mother fucker with a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This whole thing is a giant supplier-failure. Suppliers have zero standing complaining that a product they are not even offering gets copied without compensation. They are basically doing it to themselves and then are crying out for laws to fix the effects of their own stupidity and greed. That will never work.
Re: (Score:2)
And they are ignored everywhere.
Masturbation joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Masturbation joke (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
70% ? Thats good, but its not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to strive for 100%.
Yumpin' Yimminy! (Score:2)
How about making your content easily available? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is going to pay for one more streaming service, when you already have 2 legal streaming services, and you are really only interested in one show on that third service. Or worse, your favorite show is not available for streaming at all because it is licensed to a cable channel that don't offer streaming.
When that happens, I think most people feel torrent is a very reasonable alternative.
We can listen to almost any music on Spotify, Tidal, Itunes or Google Play. Why the hell do we need 5 different streaming services for seeing all TV shows?
If you want us to pay for your content, then make it easy for us to pay for it!
Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
70 is good, but how do we get it up to 80?
Sell me what I want! PLEASE! (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to buy. I really do. But what's offered simply is not good enough.
Take a show. Just choose one. You will not be able to see it here, not even for any sort of money you'd be willing to throw at the makers, until after it's been on local TV. Ok, you may say, that's understandable, so you get it a month later. Nope. Half a year to a year later. Why? Dubbing.
TV shows get dubbed around here. Invariably. And 9 out of 10 times they get dubbed badly. The dialogues are stale and it seems they go out of their way to take out any kind of joke or mood the original tried to convey, the lip syncing is hilariously bad (think old Eastern movies) and the sync actors seem to be whatever actor is currently out of luck and in dire need of work.
And when it finally gets available, hope and pray that you're lucky to get the original version instead of just the dubbed atrocity.
Can anyone imagine why people reach for torrents and other less legal sources? Why is it that I cannot simply buy the same DVDs that are available in the US?
Copyright infringement =/= Piracy (Score:2)
They're actually copyright infringers, not pirates.
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org]
Perhaps if (Score:2)
The only reason people are breaking the law is because what's in place right now isn't even close to filling a need.
If the media moguls stopped playing games with artificial marketplaces, and also charging ridiculous prices for movies, then maybe the whole need for copyright infringment would go away.
The fact that they even need to resort to laws to protect their artificial marketplaces, serves to underline how fucked up it must be. The fact that governments even make protectionist laws like this also under
As for the rest ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And now compare what's available on Netflix in the US with what's available in Sweden.
You know, the price of a burger menu is the same in the US as it is here, too, the difference is maybe that I had an appetizer here while I couldn't finish half of it in the US.
Piracy Reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was a kid I also pirated a lot (in my case all software though, not movies or music), up through college. Then I stopped...
It wasn't because I saw more value in work though. It was because I HAD more money. To me when I had no money pirating was obviously not stealing to me because there was no possibility to give them money anyway, so there was no loss.
When I had enough money to pay for things, I did because then it would have been stealing had I not. I have not pirated anything in a decade or more now...
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid I also pirated a lot (in my case all software though, not movies or music), up through college. Then I stopped...
It wasn't because I saw more value in work though. It was because I HAD more money.
Exactly! And what I've noticed more recently is that the sticky prices aren't as sticky anymore and because good indie games are around there is actual a market for games where they have to compete on price instead of fixed prices. That also helps. Another thing about the sentiment for the big blockbuster game/movie studios, some of the stuff they churn out is crap while some indie studios produce significantly lower budget content that is FAR more enjoyable. On the games front: Darkest Dungeon, Halycon
The publisher refuses to take my money (Score:3)
Today with all the options available 'because I can't get it any other way' is a crock
Sometimes I can't get it because the publisher refuses to take my money. Try this exercise: Find me a lawfully made copy of these on a video format popular in the United States.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you are not ENTITLED to watch it
How does this lack of ENTITLEMENT "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?
Wait a few more years and it will all be worked out
This is not practical for copyright, which is designed to subsist for a period exceeding one human lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it hinder it in these particular cases? The things you listed aren't exactly classics.
Who decides what are "classics"?
Find me a lawfully made copy of these on a video format popular in the United States.
So buy it on DVD
From the linked page: "Region: Region 2 (This DVD may not be viewable outside Europe. Read more about DVD formats.)" Region 1 DVD is popular in the United States. Region 2 DVD is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a torrent site isn't necessarily illegal, and in the case that it is, it wouldn't necessarily be used for video.
Re: (Score:3)
They will be subject to regime change when Hollywood manages to buy a democrat for president.
Re: (Score:2)
They prefer the non-offensive term "Fanny Bandits".
Re: (Score:2)
In English the latter would be a compliment to an excessively macho male.
In American it would be a compliment to an excessively flamboyant gay.
Two worlds separated by a common language.